While investors continue to fret over what Apple plans to do with its $159 billion in cash and investments, the company is quietly spending far more than previously on its secretive acquisitions, exceeding a half-billion dollars last quarter alone.

Apple revealed in its quarterly 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it spent $525 million on acquisitions in the three-month period that ended Dec. 28, 2013. That was up from $284 million spent by the company in the same period a year prior.

Apple's spending spree in the company's first quarter of fiscal 2014 was highlighted this week by analyst Maynard Um of Wells Fargo. He believes the acquisitions made in the quarter include:

Personal assistant app Cue, said to be bought for at least $35 million, and first revealed by AppleInsiderin October

Topsy, a social media analytics firm, was rumored in December to have been purchased for over $200 million

However, the rumored prices on this trio of acquisitions approach $600 million, which would suggest that either Apple paid less than was reported, or some of the deals were actually completed prior to the quarter.Apple's $525 million spent on acquisitions in the December quarter is believed to have included the purchase of three companies.

Separately, Apple was confirmed last quarter to have acquired digital mapping firm BroadMap, and note-taking start-up Catch, but both of those purchases were reportedly completed in the first half of 2013, and the deals would not be reflected in Apple's December quarter spending.

In the past, Apple's acquisitions have sometimes led directly to new products, services and functionality from the company. For example, Apple's 2012 purchase of AuthenTec led to that company's fingerprint scanning hardware appearing in the iPhone 5s as Touch ID, while Apple's 2008 acquisition of Lala paved the way for iTunes Match and cloud-streaming music.

Apple made a number of acquisitions in 2013, a good portion of which were related to mapping, signaling that the company is acquiring talent in an effort to bolster its own Maps product for iOS and OS X. Among those purchases was public transit and navigation firm HopStop, crowd-sourced mapping data startup Locationary, and indoor GPS company WifiSLAM.

Surged?!! Apple spends a measly $525 million dollars in a quarter with $159 billion in the bank. Amazon spends that much on company expansion in a month with around $6 billion in cash reserves. Apple is such a tightwad of a company and that's why its share price is in the toilet while the rest of the stock market is on a tear. Look at the stock market today and which tech stock is in the red. Apple, of course, while Google and Amazon are taking off. Tim Cook needs to get a clue on how to put some shareholder value into Apple. It really is sickening.

Wall Street does not give brownie points to companies that hoard massive amounts of cash because it's considered wasteful. Either put the money to work or give it to shareholders. Google's already up about $24 and when earnings are announced the stock will jump another $100. That's a powerhouse company. Apple is now considered an also-ran tech company that can't even hold a lousy $500 a share level. Apple's acquisitions appear to be useless from a value standpoint. It seems like a no-win situation for Apple shareholders.

Surged?!! Apple spends a measly $525 million dollars in a quarter with $159 billion in the bank. Amazon spends that much on company expansion in a month with around $6 billion in cash reserves. Apple is such a tightwad of a company and that's why its share price is in the toilet while the rest of the stock market is on a tear. Look at the stock market today and which tech stock is in the red. Apple, of course, while Google and Amazon are taking off. Tim Cook needs to get a clue on how to put some shareholder value into Apple. It really is sickening.

Wall Street does not give brownie points to companies that hoard massive amounts of cash because it's considered wasteful. Either put the money to work or give it to shareholders. Google's already up about $24 and when earnings are announced the stock will jump another $100. That's a powerhouse company. Apple is now considered an also-ran tech company that can't even hold a lousy $500 a share level. Apple's acquisitions appear to be useless from a value standpoint. It seems like a no-win situation for Apple shareholders.

"Of course, that might be cold comfort to shareholders who thought they were waiting for the next iPhone rather than the next dividend check. Since Apple’s market capitalization peaked on Sept. 19, 2012, at about $658 billion, its market value has shrunk by 25%, vaporizing roughly $162 billion in paper wealth for shareholders."

I've felt for a long time that Apple is not using their money as well as they should. In fact, as a shareholder, I'd like to see them pay those taxes to bring home some of that money from overseas, or use their low borrowing rates against it, and make some more meangful purchases here, and to use more of it abroad to make more purchases there. They had $15 billion in cash flow last quarter, and now have almost $158 billion in cash, and that includes disbursements for dividends, and stock buybacks.

I really do understand the need to hold cash for a rainy day, as a former business owner, but enough is enough. What are they planning here? Are they planning anything?

I read that Apple is spending on R&D, new server farms, buying up technology companies, etc. But by the rapidly expanding cash position, it's clearly minuscule. They can build ten new $1 billion server farms a year and not cut into that cash.

They have been so many companies that Apple could/should have bought over the years that I would have urged them to buy at the time if I could have, and posted about, that would have made a vast difference to their business, that it's frustrating.

When Google put themselves up for sale for $5 billion, Apple could have afforded to buy them, and Google would have been happy with that. Imagine what the tech world would have been like if Apple owned Google?

Apple could have bought Navigon when they were up for sale, instead of Nokia buying them. That was right before the iPhone came out. What would have happened if Apple had its own, well established mapping unit, in 2007, and never needed Google maps?

How about buying Nuance before they came out with Siri? Both Google and Microsoft rely on Nuance, as does Apple, for their own voice operated systems. How would things turn out if there was nowhere for them to have gone?

How about Skype? Apple could have gotten that for $3.4 billion, well under what Microsoft later paid for it. Think of Apple owning that, and the services, instead of Microsoft incorporating it into their own systems.

There have been quite a few companies that Apple could have easily acquired if they got off their duffs and realized that they could add to their services, while at the same time keep it from their competitors.

There are companies that Apple could have aquired that Google has.

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if Apple ever had the gumption to move when it needed to in a big way, and this includes the Jobs era. It's coming back to bite them in the posterior.

I've felt for a long time that Apple is not using their money as well as they should. In fact, as a shareholder, I'd like to see them pay those taxes to bring home some of that money from overseas, or use their low borrowing rates against it, and make some more meangful purchases here, and to use more of it abroad to make more purchases there. They had $15 billion in cash flow last quarter, and now have almost $158 billion in cash, and that includes disbursements for dividends, and stock buybacks.

I really do understand the need to hold cash for a rainy day, as a former business owner, but enough is enough. What are they planning here? Are they planning anything?

[snipped]

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if Apple ever had the gumption to move when it needed to in a big way, and this includes the Jobs era. It's coming back to bite them in the posterior.

Tim Cook (and Jobs for that matter) is a products guy. If that is his comfort zone then I don't see him straying too far afield from that.

I think we have to wait yet another year to get an idea of where Cook and Company is going. If we don't see any clear indications by this time next year then I'd say Apple will be getting into deep waters.

How many large scale acquisitions/mergers have worked out in the past? It seems like more often than not they don't. I think there there is a frustration right now amongst fans and investors for Apple to do something, anything. And Apple is basically saying we know what we're doing, have patience. People's patience is running out. I'm all for Apple making an acquisition if it makes sense (personally I think Square would be a good fit for Apple's future mobile payment plans). But I don't think they should make a large acquisition just for the sake of it, just because they're swimming in cash and people are antsy for them to "do something". For me personally, I don't have enough invested in Apple stock to really matter so I'm willing to be patient and see what Apple delivers later this year.

Lets put this into perspective. If you had $1000 in the bank, this is equivalent to you spending $3.30 in 3 months! Basically Apple bought a coffee at Starbucks (Grande size I'll grant you).

Yes, you also have to wonder what the acquisitions have to do with their cash reserve. In those 3 months they made $13 billion in profit, about 86 times more than the $150 million they spent on acquisitions. They actually generated $23 billion from cash flow in the quarter which I think is what gets added to the cash hoard, about 150 times the acquisition sum. It's not like they dipped into any cash reserves.

So, in your analogy you had $1000 in the bank at the start of the quarter, added $200 during the quarter from your salary and bought a coffee.

Tim Cook (and Jobs for that matter) is a products guy. If that is his comfort zone then I don't see him straying too far afield from that.

I think we have to wait yet another year to get an idea of where Cook and Company is going. If we don't see any clear indications by this time next year then I'd say Apple will be getting into deep waters.

As I said, this goes back to the Jobs philosophy. It has nothing to do with Cook particularly. He's pretty much continuing on with Jobs's policies.

People need to stop blaming Cook for Apple's problems. I don't see Apple operating any differently now. New product categories will still take five, six, or even seven years to make an appearance.

They need to drop some of Jobs's policies. And the one they need to drop the most is the one of only buying smaller companies for purely technical purposes, or for incomplete software that Apple can enlarge upon. They need to buy bigger companies with well developed services, or even products.

Apple now needs to operate like a giant company, which it is. Giant companies rarely can grow quickly without buying into other areas. They also have to change some of their philosophy about product pricing. We see that the 5c didn't sell well. I can understand that. For the first time, Apple is telling people; "Hey, we've got a cheaper phone out, and everyone will know you bought that!"

Previously, people could buy the top line phone a year or two later, while knowing that it had been the top line phone, and people who didn't know when they bought it, could think they bought it at the full price, when it first came out. It's a matter of prestige. People actually do think that way. But the 5C doesn't offer that prestige. If Apple could have made it more cheaply, and sold it for $449 instead, the bigger differential might have made a difference, but the differential wasn't enough to make up for that fact that people would be saying; "I see you bought Apple's cheaper model." That even seems to be the case overseas.

We need new thinking, not more regurgitated Steve Jobs thought. That era is over.

How many large scale acquisitions/mergers have worked out in the past? It seems like more often than not they don't. I think there there is a frustration right now amongst fans and investors for Apple to do something, anything. And Apple is basically saying we know what we're doing, have patience. People's patience is running out. I'm all for Apple making an acquisition if it makes sense (personally I think Square would be a good fit for Apple's future mobile payment plans). But I don't think they should make a large acquisition just for the sake of it, just because they're swimming in cash and people are antsy for them to "do something". For me personally, I don't have enough invested in Apple stock to really matter so I'm willing to be patient and see what Apple delivers later this year.

Large scale acquisitions are not what you think they are. If Apple, a $180 billion a year company, buys a $3 billion a year company for $8 billion, that's not considered to be a large scale acquisition.

A large scale acquisition is when a $30 billion a year company buys a $20 billion a year company. Or. $100 billion a year company buys $70 billion a year company. No one is advocating that. At least, I'm not.

Large scale acquisitions are not what you think they are. If Apple, a $180 billion a year company, buys a $3 billion a year company for $8 billion, that's not considered to be a large scale acquisition.

A large scale acquisition is when a $30 billion a year company buys a $20 billion a year company. Or. $100 billion a year company buys $70 billion a year company. No one is advocating that. At least, I'm not.

I don't completely disagree with you. I'd love to see Apple buy Square. I hope it happens.

The problem Apple has now is they can never spend the money fast enough, unless they attempt to buy some stupidly large company and blow it on a company which it is not worth it. Wall Street tends favor stupid decision on purchases, The like the model of buy the market since most company can not grow into a market.

Well, if Cook stays at the top then I doubt if we are going to see too much change.

But maybe Cook will be proven right. At one point in 2012 Apple stock was around $700. What changed in terms of Apple's philosophy or the way it operates for everyone to be hating on it now? The concerns people have now...did they not exist in the spring/summer of 2012? Or is Cook expected to change on a dime and make some big acquisition or big change in philosophy/strategy in an attempt to keep the Wall Street love? I've listened to most of Tim's comments over the past two years and it always seemed to me like 2014 and beyond were going to be when we see brand new stuff from Apple. I've always looked at 2012 as a year for Apple to show it can stand on its own two feet without Steve Jobs and 2013 as a transitional year setting Apple up for bigger things in 2014 and beyond (like with Touch ID and 64-bit and the acquisitions they made).

But maybe Cook will be proven right. At one point in 2012 Apple stock was around $700. What changed in terms of Apple's philosophy or the way it operates for everyone to be hating on it now? The concerns people have now...did they not exist in the spring/summer of 2012? Or is Cook expected to change on a dime and make some big acquisition or big change in philosophy/strategy in an attempt to keep the Wall Street love? I've listened to most of Tim's comments over the past two years and it always seemed to me like 2014 and beyond were going to be when we see brand new stuff from Apple. I've always looked at 2012 as a year for Apple to show it can stand on its own two feet without Steve Jobs and 2013 as a transitional year setting Apple up for bigger things in 2014 and beyond (like with Touch ID and 64-bit and the acquisitions they made).

I can't speak for everyone else. I have always been unsure of Cook.

... but in the statement that you quoted I was not being either judgemental nor critical.

[... and the $700 peak was a bubble created by speculation. The price should have peaked at $550, imo]

Well, if Cook stays at the top then I doubt if we are going to see too much change.

Change does take some time. Apple has some time, but not too much time. We can see its product sales are up, except for the expected drop in iPod sales. But they aren't up by much. For example, I fully expected to see iPhone sales of upwards of 55 million. But it really needed to be upward of 60 million to keep pace. It wasn't.

I expected to see iPad sales above 30 million, actually around 32 million. But they were up to 29 million. Not enough.

Mac sales were up, but still 400,000 below their best year, I think, two years ago. So not enough there either.

Apple has always had the problem of coming out with smashing new products, well ahead of others—and then just sitting on them. Incremental improvements aren't enough when it just takes two or at the most, three years for competitors to work around the advantages, either on price, or features.

Apple needs to stop thinking that a small handful of blockbuster products is enough. They need to amass a larger number of smaller, but steadily selling products as well.

So perhaps they do need a $250 iPhone, even if it can't work perfectly with high end games and apps. Same thing for the iPad. Maybe Apple does need a content device that doesn't run my CAD apps that well, but runs content perfectly fine. Maybe a $225 Mini, and a $349 full size model. I bet that would come close to doubling sales.

But they need to double storage for the same price. No reason why the iPad Air isn't $499 with 32GB flash. $599 with 64GB, and $699 with 128.

And if it's margins we're talking about, then I need to remind people that with Apple lowering the prices of their software, or giving it away, margins are impacted heavily. If you sell FCP for $299 rather than the $999 it was previously, then Apple is losing most of their high margin software profit. Worse for OS X and now free apps. So we can't look to hardware pricing and think that lower margins are just due to them.

Apple has to startle people, and that hasn't happened for some time. I just hope this watch, if it comes out, is a major eye opener. Same thing for the new aTv we should be seeing soon.

... but in the statement that you quoted I was not being either judgemental nor critical.

[... and the $700 peak was a bubble created by speculation. The price should have peaked at $550, imo]

Right, so Cook and team shouldn't be nailed because the stock has fallen from an unsustainable level. Who's to say that other companies going up and up right now won't have their bubble burst too? Twitter is up almost 9% today and is at $64/share. Seems ridiculous to me. I'm skeptical of this idea that companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. will just keep going up and up and up. I think the whole stock market is a bubble right now.

But maybe Cook will be proven right. At one point in 2012 Apple stock was around $700. What changed in terms of Apple's philosophy or the way it operates for everyone to be hating on it now? The concerns people have now...did they not exist in the spring/summer of 2012? Or is Cook expected to change on a dime and make some big acquisition or big change in philosophy/strategy in an attempt to keep the Wall Street love? I've listened to most of Tim's comments over the past two years and it always seemed to me like 2014 and beyond were going to be when we see brand new stuff from Apple. I've always looked at 2012 as a year for Apple to show it can stand on its own two feet without Steve Jobs and 2013 as a transitional year setting Apple up for bigger things in 2014 and beyond (like with Touch ID and 64-bit and the acquisitions they made).

I don't think we need too much "new stuff" though. Apple's stock plummeted, not because there was no new stuff, but because the stuff they have didn't sell as well as we ALL were expecting it would. That's the key; growth to at least equal that of the industry, not significantly below it.

Right, so Cook and team shouldn't be nailed because the stock has fallen from an unsustainable level. Who's to say that other companies going up and up right now won't have their bubble burst too? Twitter is up almost 9% today and is at $64/share. Seems ridiculous to me. I'm skeptical of this idea that companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. will just keep going up and up and up. I think the whole stock market is a bubble right now.

Cook should be nailed for not attaining at least a 10% growth level yoy. It has nothing to do with where the stock was previously.

I don't remember ever seeing any article that says that TWTR, GOOG, AMZN and FB are going to go up forever.

Besides... they are separate companies and all have to be looked at individually.

Change does take some time. Apple has some time, but not too much time. We can see its product sales are up, except for the expected drop in iPod sales. But they aren't up by much. For example, I fully expected to see iPhone sales of upwards of 55 million. But it really needed to be upward of 60 million to keep pace. It wasn't.

I expected to see iPad sales above 30 million, actually around 32 million. But they were up to 29 million. Not enough.

Mac sales were up, but still 400,000 below their best year, I think, two years ago. So not enough there either.

Apple has always had the problem of coming out with smashing new products, well ahead of others—and then just sitting on them. Incremental improvements aren't enough when it just takes two or at the most, three years for competitors to work around the advantages, either on price, or features.

Apple needs to stop thinking that a small handful of blockbuster products is enough. They need to amass a larger number of smaller, but steadily selling products as well.

So perhaps they do need a $250 iPhone, even if it can't work perfectly with high end games and apps. Same thing for the iPad. Maybe Apple does need a content device that doesn't run my CAD apps that well, but runs content perfectly fine. Maybe a $225 Mini, and a $349 full size model. I bet that would come close to doubling sales.

But they need to double storage for the same price. No reason why the iPad Air isn't $499 with 32GB flash. $599 with 64GB, and $699 with 128.

And if it's margins we're talking about, then I need to remind people that with Apple lowering the prices of their software, or giving it away, margins are impacted heavily. If you sell FCP for $299 rather than the $999 it was previously, then Apple is losing most of their high margin software profit. Worse for OS X and now free apps. So we can't look to hardware pricing and think that lower margins are just due to them.

Apple has to startle people, and that hasn't happened for some time. I just hope this watch, if it comes out, is a major eye opener. Same thing for the new aTv we should be seeing soon.

All of which is true. Part of me has always hoped that there are a few gems in the works cooked up by a still healthy Steve, awaiting technological advances to make them actual products. I fear without Steve there are no more industry level, paradigm shifts on the horizon from Apple, or anyone for that matter, for a long time to come with the possible exception of Elon.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

I don't think we need too much "new stuff" though. Apple's stock plummeted, not because there was no new stuff, but because the stuff they have didn't sell as well as we ALL were expecting it would. That's the key; growth to at least equal that of the industry, not significantly below it.

Here's where I disagree. I think Apple needs new revenue streams. iPhone being over 50% of their revenues isn't healthy. And I do think part of the stock drop was because Wall Street was expecting new categories. That's why they keep badgering Cook about innovation. I don't want Apple to become Samsung. I don't want them to start building cheap phones and tablets just to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with market share. I want them to design and build products people are willing to pay a premium for. I want them to attract and keep profitable market share.

Cook should be nailed for not attaining at least a 10% growth level yoy. It has nothing to do with where the stock was previously.

I don't remember ever seeing any article that says that TWTR, GOOG, AMZN and FB are going to go up forever.

Besides... they are separate companies and all have to be looked at individually.

Cook should be nailed in what way? Fired? Demoted? His employment contract has already been adjusted to be tied to Apple's stock performance. I don't know what else can be done besides either firing him or demoting him back to COO.

Cook should be nailed in what way? Fired? Demoted? His employment contract has already been adjusted to be tied to Apple's stock performance. I don't know what else can be done besides either firing him or demoting him back to COO.